In the ongoing trial of former National Signals Bureau (NSB) Director-General, Kwabena Adu Boahene, the High Court has rejected an attempt by the defence to introduce a controversial financial document during cross-examination proceedings.
The ruling, delivered on Monday, April 20, 2026, marks yet another procedural setback for the defence in a case that continues to draw public attention over allegations of financial impropriety involving state funds.
Background to the Proceedings
Kwabena Adu Boahene, former head of the NSB, is standing trial in connection with what has been described as a cybersecurity software scandal. He is alleged to have misappropriated GH¢49.1 million belonging to the Bureau.
The prosecution’s case has, in part, focused on financial transactions and internal processes within the NSB, with key witnesses providing testimony on the handling and movement of funds.
READ ALSO
The Contested Document
During the cross-examination of the second prosecution witness, Ruby Edith Adumuah, Head of Finance at the NSB, counsel for the accused sought to introduce a Swift transfer receipt. The document, according to the defence, was relevant to the financial issues under examination.
However, the prosecution raised immediate objections. Led by the Deputy Attorney-General, the State argued that the document in question originated not from the NSB, but from Advantage Solutions, a private company linked to the accused.
The prosecution further contended that the defence’s attempt to present the document in a manner suggestive of NSB origin was misleading.
Arguments Before the Court
The prosecution anchored its objection on two principal grounds: relevance and competence.
First, it maintained that the document was not materially relevant to the issues being tried.
Second, and more decisively, it argued that the witness could not properly be examined on a document outside her personal knowledge.
In response, counsel for the defence insisted that the witness was competent to speak to financial instruments such as Swift transfer receipts. The defence further argued that the witness had identified the document as such, thereby opening the door for questioning.
The Court’s Ruling
Presiding over the matter, His Lordship Justice Francis Achibonga upheld the prosecution’s objection and refused the admission of the document for purposes of cross-examination.
In its ruling, the Court emphasised the requirement that a witness must have personal knowledge of a document before being made to testify on it. The Court noted that the witness’s own description of the document, stating that it “seemed” to be a Swift transfer receipt, betrayed uncertainty and undermined the reliability of her identification.
On that basis, the Court concluded that it would be improper to subject the witness to questioning on the document. The objection was accordingly sustained.
This ruling, though an immediate setback for the defence, reinforces the Court’s insistence on strict evidentiary standards. Whether this ultimately alters the trajectory of the case remains to be seen, but it is increasingly clear that the contest between prosecution and defence will be fought as much on procedural grounds as on the substance of the allegations.
